Michigan Supreme Court: Cases for Argument – January 2023
SADO attorneys will present arguments to the Michigan Supreme Court at its January 2023 session on issues including coercive interrogations, in-court identifications, Michigan's sentencing guidelines, the Fourth Amendment, physical presence at sentencing, and more. The calendar on the Court's home pagelists the times for each argument, and a summary of each case is below.
CALENDAR CASES
People v Robert Yarbrough, Jr, MSC No. 161513 (COA No. 347400)
• Peremptory Challenge/Standard of Review on Appeal
The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the erroneous denial of a defendant’s peremptory challenge is reviewed for harmless error, is subject to automatic reversal, or is subject to some different standard of review, see People v Kabongo, 507 Mich ___ (2021) (Docket No. 159346); and (2) if harmless error applies, who bears the burden of proving that the error was harmless. Mr. Yarbrough is represented by SADO’s Steven Helton.
ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPLICATIONS
People v Benoni Jonathon Enciso, MSC No. 162311 (COA No. 342965)
• Physical Presence at Sentencing
The Court directed the parties to address whether: (1) a defendant’s unpreserved claim regarding his or her lack of physical presence at sentencing is subject to review for plain error; (2) lack of presence at sentencing is structural error; (3) if the error is not structural how a defendant could show the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings; and (4) if the error is structural how a prosecutor could rebut the presumption that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See People v Davis, ___ Mich ___ (2022) (Docket No. 161396). Mr. Enciso is represented by SADO’s Michael Mittlestat.
People v Dametrius Benjamin Posey, MSC No. 162373 (COA No. 345491)
• In-court Identification – MCL 769.34(10)
The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the appellant was denied his right to due process when witness T. B. was allowed to identify him at trial, or denied the effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to object to the witness’ in-court identification testimony; (2) whether the requirement in MCL 769.34(10) that the Court of Appeals affirm any sentence within the guidelines range, absent a scoring error or reliance on inaccurate information, is consistent with the Sixth Amendment, the due-process right to appellate review, and People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015); and, if not, (3) whether the appellant’s sentence is reasonable and proportionate. Mr. Posey is represented by SADO’s Adrienne Young.
People v Joshua Lamar-James Stewart, MSC No. 162497 (COA No. 343755)
• Involuntary Statement/Promises of Leniency – MCL 769.34(10)
The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the statement the appellant made to the police was not voluntary because the interrogating officers employed overly coercive tactics, including promises of leniency. People v Conte, 421 Mich 704 (1984), see also People v Shipley, 256 Mich App 367, 373 (2003); (2) whether the requirement in MCL 769.34(10) that the Court of Appeals affirm any sentence within the guidelines range, absent a scoring error or reliance on inaccurate information, is consistent with the Sixth Amendment, the due-process right to appellate review, and People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015); and, if not, (3) whether the appellant’s sentence is reasonable and proportionate. Mr. Stewart is represented by SADO’s Marilena David.
People v Marcus Lavell Lewis, MSC No. 162743 (COA No. 349774)
• Search Warrant/Sufficient Nexus
The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the search warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the alleged drug trafficking and defendant’s home, see Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 238 (1983); compare United States v Brown, 828 F3d 375 (CA 6, 2016), with United States v White, 874 F3d 490 (CA 6, 2017), and United States v Reed, 993 F3d 441 (CA 6, 2021); and (2) if not, whether the officers relied on the search warrant in good faith. People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523 (2004). Mr. Lewis is represented by SADO’s Jason Eggert.
People v Rami Ali Jaber, MSC No. 162970 (COA No. 352092)
• Disproportionate Sentence/
Refusal to Admit Guilt
The Court directed the parties to address whether: (1) the Wayne Circuit Court erred by scoring Offense Variable (OV) 5 at 15 points; and (2) the appellant is entitled to resentencing because: (a) his sentence is unreasonable or disproportionate; (b) the trial court erred by taking into account his refusal to admit his guilt; or (c) the trial court erred by sentencing the appellant on the basis of acquitted conduct or facts not found in the record.
The Supreme Court case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties are available at https://www.courts.michigan.gov/courts/supreme-court/schedule-of-oral-arguments/
Watch live streaming arguments at
by John Zevalking
Associate Editor
Subscriber Comments